DEG PublicationsAre you Proactive vs. Reactive?
Climate Debate Demands a Stance
By KATHERINE C. MANGER
Chairman, DEG Committee on Environmental Issues
Few in our industry anticipated the intense interest raised by greenhouse
gas emissions and related climate change issues, especially as
debate and research only began in earnest after the 1990 Framework
Convention on Climate Change in Rio de Janeiro.
The pace at which the climate change debate has left the scientific
realm and entered the public arena reflects societal concern about
the potential impacts of increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in
the earth’s atmosphere.
In response, leaders of many industrialized nations and many major developing nations are setting agendas to reduce emissions.
The evolution of the climate change debate not only demonstrates the
difference between science and public policy, but also the
transition from reactive to proactive environmental policy.
In public policy, decision-makers often consider and implement programs
based on the principle of “no regrets,” a phrase originated by
the Bush Administration for taking reasonable actions in order to be
prepared should a problem be identified. This philosophy is partly
responsible for the position of many nations, which is that of taking
measures now in case scientific research should eventually,
irrefutably prove a link between human activity and climate change.
Nations that have already signed the Kyoto Protocol have essentially
adopted this position (see Figure 1). These nations are taking a
proactive stance and doing something about a potential environmental
problem rather than taking a reactive stance and waiting to
address after its impacts are fully proven or documented.
* * *
While not having approved the Kyoto Protocol, the United States has
examined climate change issues and implemented related
programs since signing the Framework Convention on Climate Change in
1993. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
with assistance from the American Petroleum Institute and American
Gas Association, worked closely with industry to jointly develop
and launch the voluntary Natural Gas STAR program.
The STAR program has encouraged cooperative efforts to reduce methane
emissions with transmission and distribution companies
since 1993 and with exploration and production companies since 1995.
Natural Gas STAR partners have found that the program is an effective
tool for improving their financial performance and for defining
and implementing internal environmental goals. For example:
p Marathon Oil has achieved the largest methane emission reductions
among all the E&P partners. According to Marathon’s John
Weust, “It has been a terrific way for us to improve our systems and
save money.”
p As J. William Fishback II of Mobil points out, “These projects meet
our corporate rate-of-return targets. The STAR program also
focuses our attention on looking for other winners ... The administrative
duties are not significant relative to the benefits. ... The STAR
program and partner companies have worked hard to streamline the reporting
process.”
p Mitchell Energy & Development Corp.’s Glenn Smith explains, “The
Natural Gas STAR program has introduced us to new ways of
improving our systems. It has allowed us to take advantage of various
technologies and practices that other companies are successfully
implementing to reduce gas loss.”
The STAR program – along with other similar programs such as Australia's
Greenhouse Challenge and Canada's Voluntary Challenge
and Registry – is proving that voluntary cooperation can be an effective
tool in implementing environmental policy. France, Germany,
Japan and Norway also have voluntary efforts under way.
As the climate change debate continues to unfold, we as petroleum industry professionals are faced with an interesting question:
Do we adhere to our strict scientific principles and wait until the
data are fully analyzed OR do we begin to proactively influence the
direction of policy decisions now?
The implications of our choice could be significant. In waiting, we
may be forced into a reactive stance where policy and possibly
legislation will have already been established.
By participating in the policy debate now we could influence the direction
of the policy and have a voice in any potential legislative
action that may result.
DEG Reporter V1 N4
Stuff goes here and here and here and here. Stuff goes here and here and here and here.Stuff goes here and here and here and here.Stuff goes here and here and here and here.Stuff goes here and here and here and here.Stuff goes here and here and here and here.DEG Reporter V1 N3
Stuff goes here and here and here and here. Stuff goes here and here and here and here.Stuff goes here and here and here and here.Stuff goes here and here and here and here.Stuff goes here and here and here and here.Stuff goes here and here and here and here.DEG Reporter V1 N2
Stuff goes here and here and here and here. Stuff goes here and here and here and here.Stuff goes here and here and here and here.Stuff goes here and here and here and here.Stuff goes here and here and here and here.Stuff goes here and here and here and here.DEG Reporter V1 N1
Stuff goes here and here and here and here. Stuff goes here and here and here and here.Stuff goes here and here and here and here.Stuff goes here and here and here and here.Stuff goes here and here and here and here.Stuff goes here and here and here and here.